Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-bluetooth+bounces-2016-linux.lists.archive=gmail.com@vger.kernel.org designates 139.178.88.99 as permitted sender) client-ip=139.178.88.99;
Precedence: bulk
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <20240126063500.2684087-1-wenst@chromium.org> <20240126063500.2684087-2-wenst@chromium.org>
 <74b9f249-fcb4-4338-bf7b-8477de6c935c@linaro.org> <CAGXv+5Hu+KsTBd1JtnKcaE3qUzPhHbunoVaH2++yfNopHtFf4g@mail.gmail.com>
 <21568334-b21f-429e-81cd-5ce77accaf3c@linaro.org> <CAGXv+5HxXzjigN3Bp96vkv71WfTJ1S2b7Wgafc4GxLmhu6+jMg@mail.gmail.com>
 <a4324473-e0c6-4d53-8de0-03b69480e40b@linaro.org> <CAGXv+5HAqmUizXztMH_nY6e+6oQh01hCtxEJXKtCn3_74-sOsQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <78241d63-3b9d-4c04-9ea5-11b45eac6f00@linaro.org> <20240130223856.GA2538998-robh@kernel.org>
 <CAGXv+5FwaNe7oesGwZ=yR0Pg82tEzEF3B0zjoex4qw+6zsSYbQ@mail.gmail.com> <CAPDyKFofy24N7ymzTF7wiADc17Tw9FiNTYMnbxgoioMBwDKVhA@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAPDyKFofy24N7ymzTF7wiADc17Tw9FiNTYMnbxgoioMBwDKVhA@mail.gmail.com>
From: Chen-Yu Tsai <wenst@chromium.org>
Date: Tue, 20 Feb 2024 16:19:18 +0800
Message-ID: <CAGXv+5Fvdp__Razz_nxcedCV_P=Wbj=F_a6=s4V4SbW4RooueA@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 1/2] dt-bindings: net: bluetooth: Add MediaTek MT7921S
 SDIO Bluetooth
To: Rob Herring <robh@kernel.org>, Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzysztof.kozlowski@linaro.org>
Cc: Ulf Hansson <ulf.hansson@linaro.org>, Marcel Holtmann <marcel@holtmann.org>, 
	Luiz Augusto von Dentz <luiz.dentz@gmail.com>, 
	Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzysztof.kozlowski+dt@linaro.org>, Conor Dooley <conor+dt@kernel.org>, 
	Matthias Brugger <matthias.bgg@gmail.com>, 
	AngeloGioacchino Del Regno <angelogioacchino.delregno@collabora.com>, 
	Sean Wang <sean.wang@mediatek.com>, linux-bluetooth@vger.kernel.org, 
	netdev@vger.kernel.org, linux-mediatek@lists.infradead.org, 
	devicetree@vger.kernel.org, linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org, 
	linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

On Tue, Feb 6, 2024 at 1:50=E2=80=AFAM Ulf Hansson <ulf.hansson@linaro.org>=
 wrote:
>
> On Wed, 31 Jan 2024 at 04:39, Chen-Yu Tsai <wenst@chromium.org> wrote:
> >
> > (+CC Ulf Hansson)
> >
> > On Wed, Jan 31, 2024 at 6:38=E2=80=AFAM Rob Herring <robh@kernel.org> w=
rote:
> > >
> > > On Tue, Jan 30, 2024 at 05:25:38PM +0100, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
> > > > On 30/01/2024 08:47, Chen-Yu Tsai wrote:
> > > > > On Tue, Jan 30, 2024 at 3:37=E2=80=AFPM Krzysztof Kozlowski
> > > > > <krzysztof.kozlowski@linaro.org> wrote:
> > > > >>
> > > > >> On 30/01/2024 04:32, Chen-Yu Tsai wrote:
> > > > >>> On Mon, Jan 29, 2024 at 3:34=E2=80=AFPM Krzysztof Kozlowski
> > > > >>> <krzysztof.kozlowski@linaro.org> wrote:
> > > > >>>>
> > > > >>>> On 29/01/2024 04:38, Chen-Yu Tsai wrote:
> > > > >>>>
> > > > >>>>>>> +allOf:
> > > > >>>>>>> +  - $ref: bluetooth-controller.yaml#
> > > > >>>>>>> +
> > > > >>>>>>> +properties:
> > > > >>>>>>> +  compatible:
> > > > >>>>>>> +    enum:
> > > > >>>>>>> +      - mediatek,mt7921s-bluetooth
> > > > >>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>> Can it be also WiFi on separate bus? How many device nodes d=
o you need
> > > > >>>>>> for this device?
> > > > >>>>>
> > > > >>>>> For the "S" variant, WiFi is also on SDIO. For the other two =
variants,
> > > > >>>>> "U" and "E", WiFi goes over USB and PCIe respectively. On bot=
h those
> > > > >>>>> variants, Bluetooth can either go over USB or UART. That is w=
hat I
> > > > >>>>> gathered from the pinouts. There are a dozen GPIO pins which =
don't
> > > > >>>>> have detailed descriptions though. If you want a comprehensiv=
e
> > > > >>>>> binding of the whole chip and all its variants, I suggest we =
ask
> > > > >>>>> MediaTek to provide it instead. My goal with the binding is t=
o document
> > > > >>>>> existing usage and allow me to upstream new device trees.
> > > > >>>>>
> > > > >>>>> For now we only need the Bluetooth node. The WiFi part is per=
fectly
> > > > >>>>> detectable, and the driver doesn't seem to need the WiFi rese=
t pin.
> > > > >>>>> The Bluetooth driver only uses its reset pin to reset a hung =
controller.
> > > > >>>>
> > > > >>>> Then suffix "bluetooth" seems redundant.
> > > > >>>
> > > > >>> I think keeping the suffix makes more sense though. The chip is=
 a two
> > > > >>> function piece, and this only targets one of the functions. Als=
o, the
> > > > >>
> > > > >> That's why I asked and you said there is only one interface: SDI=
O.
> > > > >
> > > > > There's only one interface, SDIO, but two SDIO functions. The two
> > > > > functions, if both were to be described in the device tree, would
> > > > > be two separate nodes. We just don't have any use for the WiFi on=
e
> > > > > right now. Does that make sense to keep the suffix?
> > > >
> > > > Number of functions does not really matter. Number of interfaces on=
 the
> > > > bus would matter. Why would you have two separate nodes for the sam=
e
> > > > SDIO interface? Or do you want to say there are two interfaces?
> >
> > There is only one external interface. I don't know how the functions
> > are stitched together internally.
> >
> > It could be that the separate functions have nothing in common other
> > than sharing a standard external SDIO interface. Each function can be
> > individually controlled, and operations for different functions are
> > directed internally to the corresponding core.
> >
> > > Right, one device at 2 addresses on a bus should be a node with 2 "re=
g"
> > > entries, not 2 nodes with 1 "reg" address each.
> >
> > AFAICU that's not what the MMC controller binding, which I quote below,
> > says. It implies that each SDIO function shall be a separate node under
> > the MMC controller node.
>
> Yes, that's what we decided to go with, a long time ago. At least in
> this particular case, I think it makes sense, as each function
> (child-node) may also describe additional resources routed to each
> function.
>
> A typical description could be for a WiFi-Bluetooth combo-chip, where
> each function may have its own clocks, irqs and regulators being
> routed.

Rob, Krzysztof, does that help you understand why the binding and example
are written with bluetooth being one node and WiFi (should it ever be added=
)
being a separate node? It is based on the existing MMC controller bindings.

ChenYu


> >
> >
> > patternProperties:
> >   "^.*@[0-9]+$":
> >     type: object
> >     description: |
> >       On embedded systems the cards connected to a host may need
> >       additional properties. These can be specified in subnodes to the
> >       host controller node. The subnodes are identified by the
> >       standard \'reg\' property. Which information exactly can be
> >       specified depends on the bindings for the SDIO function driver
> >       for the subnode, as specified by the compatible string.
> >
> >     properties:
> >       compatible:
> >         description: |
> >           Name of SDIO function following generic names recommended
> >           practice
> >
> >       reg:
> >         items:
> >           - minimum: 0
> >             maximum: 7
> >             description:
> >               Must contain the SDIO function number of the function thi=
s
> >               subnode describes. A value of 0 denotes the memory SD
> >               function, values from 1 to 7 denote the SDIO functions.
> >
> >
> > ChenYu
>
> Kind regards
> Uffe